General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 538 comments are related to the topic:
100k+
100k+
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 538
|
By:
Just want to say that this thread is hugely valuable and should be read by anyone who is considering doing this seriously. It should open your eyes to what's possible and the types of people you're up against.
So many golden nuggets in here if you can spot them and plenty of respect should go the posters for being so open in their approach. An all time classic - well done guys.  |
|
By:
Yep, good stuff
|
|
By:
marky, I tried reading it all but unfortunately
dozed off half way down the second page ! |
|
By:
 Kenilworth It is more than a tad self indulgent and theres an element of "god I thought I was clever, but you are even smarter than me!" slightly sick-inducing and pretentious love in. but that's just the natural cynic in me, im sure froghair would approve [;)]Nevertheless some very interesting points in amongst the dross. Aye robot, i'd be interested to know if you do most of your trading pre-race or in-play, or is it a combination of both? I must admit i'd suspect the drawback with trading on horse's prices pre-ace would be as you try to build your position with all these tiny 2 pound bets trying to lock in a tiny profit,and someone comes in with a huge wad of money and blows the whole market wide apart. I know one big player (or at least he claims to be, but i'm not so sure) who trys to do something similar but can have bad runs if theres a massive gamble on one horse on the other from left field. So froghair's suspicions about garaunteed profits accumalated with very little risk seem to be not so misplaced. Personally I would imagine that by trading in-play you take away a lot of the risk of someone coming in with inside information and getting an edge on you in the market. I do remember reading this blog by this trader called adam heathcote, who claimed to make 300k trading on horse's prerace, without knowing anything whatsoever about horses (that reminded me of what you were saying, perhaps you are the same person? [;) ) but he seems to have dissapeared. |
|
By:
also your somewhat contemptous dismissal of the average gambler reminds me of what mordin said in "winning without thinking" that what unite's most professional gamblers that he has known isniversal contempt they show for the average punter. essentially the less like a sheep you can be,
|
|
By:
sorry to keep doing these posts but something wrong with my computer.
back to my point, the universal contempt for the person, the less like a sheep you can be, the greater your chances of keeping afloat in the long run. However although you are right in saying that these "mug punters" are addicted and will play whatever the weather, isn't that true of everybody? after all i'm pretty sure that anybody on this thread can make a great deal of money without the risks inherent in gambling. it's nothing to do with the money, really, it's the buzz, the willingness to live on the edge. If I could best describe what defines success in gambling, I'd say it is the ability to understand how other's think and how best to take advantage of the mistakes they make again and again. without understanding why people make the bet's they do, then we are all just reduced to guessers. It's getting inside the collective gambler's head that is the key to winning at gambling. You understand the reason's why a horse or a football team might be overbet half way there. |
|
By:
and you are half way there. fuucking comp, this is why I never use bots!
|
|
By:
mythical prince
Kenilworth It is more than a tad self indulgent and theres an element of "god I thought I was clever, but you are even smarter than me!" slightly sick-inducing and pretentious love in. but that's just the natural cynic in me, im sure froghair would approve mp, I'm sure you are right and I wasn't able to wade through near 500 posts, a great deal of them exactly as you say, to find the supposed 'jewels' that lurk within. Good luck to anyone who has that kind of patience. |
|
By:
More than 120 posts from one poster. Just thought I would
throw that one in. |
|
By:
However although you are right in saying that these "mug punters" are addicted and will play whatever the weather, isn't that true of everybody? after all i'm pretty sure that anybody on this thread can make a great deal of money without the risks inherent in gambling. it's nothing to do with the money, really, it's the buzz, the willingness to live on the edge. It's everything to do with the money for me. I spend at least 40hours a week betting, and if I wasn't making a sufficient level of profit, i'd be doing something else. I'm already making quite a lot more than I was in my last job, but what really keeps me going is the potential to make a lot of money, much more than just the equivalent of a high wage. |
|
By:
couldn't someone with your skills make far more money working in the city though investor?
and you'd have the added advantage of a social life [;)] |
|
By:
yeah but who wants to socialise with those cvnts that work in the city?
|
|
By:
I think I would rather empty dustbins than sit in
front of a computer for 40+hours per week, with respect to the poster. Having said that, it would be better than sitting in front of the computer reading and posting 120+ posts on one thread. How long would that take ? |
|
By:
To be fair Kenilworth, it's probably more exiting posting on threads than doing stat counts for how many times people have posted on threads
|
|
By:
Except counting the posts took me about 5 minutes. I think I could
find something better to do than post 120+ times on a forum thread. Each to their own, whatever turns you on etc. GL. |
|
By:
Except counting the posts took me about 5 minutes
Why did you spend 5 minutes counting them? |
|
By:
What percentage of players would you say make 100k+ on here?
More than you'd think, because BF isn't a zero sum game (excluding commision). It just appears to the casual observer it is. |
|
By:
kenilworth
hope you aware that you have 4k posts here, a lot more than many that have posted on this thread |
|
By:
lusitano, you've had nearly 5k in 3 years while
my 4k is over nearly 6 years, so you have been quite busy. What do you say about that ? |
|
By:
for what the new beta forum says its the last 6 months activity
 but you seem to have problems with that, i don't i've had in my life too much social activity tbh, but if you're in the early twenties i might agree with you, but...im not in my early twenties |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Neither am I.
|
|
By:
Luistano is a troublemaker and an idiot.
|
|
By:
whats happened to this thread,i was enjojing reading
|
|
By:
ROI isn't how much you grow your bank annually you fvcking f@ggot. If I bet 100 pounds on a 1.2 shot and it comes in then my ROI is 20 percent.
|
|
By:
So what's your ROI if you lose?
|
|
By:
ok, sorry, i misunderstood
|
|
By:
my fund has decreased by 75 percent since the start of the season
|
|
By:
ROI is a useless measure in gambling. Avocado's definition of ROI tells you nothing more than the odds of a single bet (which you already know). You're better off expressing that as "odds" not "ROI."
The growth you see in your total bank might be expressed as ROI but it's not a good way of looking at returns because in gambling your money is never really "invested" in the way that it is when you buy shares (for example). Nor is the size of your bank necessarily relevant to your returns. Of course you can make an analogy between sports gambling and financial investing but it will always be weak and flawed. It's much better to call gambling what it is and use the native terminology wherever possible as that's the most accurate way of describing what we do. Gambling is a game that you win or lose, we are more accurately described as "players" not "investors", we don't "buy and sell" we "back" and "lay," our transactions are wagers, not investments. |
|
By:
Yes - If you must use one of these measures that's more sensible but you have to think carefully about the most relevant way to calculate your turnover if you back and lay the same selection (for example). If I were to do this I'd take my "turnover" to be my wins per market. So the calculation would be:
overall profit / total of winning markets. This still doesn't give you the whole picture though. Another way you might do it is calculate your total edge by dividing the number of winning bets you had (all your individual bets) by the number you would have expected if all of your odds had been "true." This would give you an average value for your bets- but would still be flawed because of the comm structure and because you may have staked different amounts on different events. Ultimately I don't bother with any of this stuff because it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I analyse the results of individual strategies quite closely but I don't bother with overall measures at all. |
|
By:
I'm not just talking about one bet. Your ROI is the percentage of what you've made/lost in relation to what you've staked. If I've staked a million and I end up 100k up then my ROI is 10 percent.
|
|
By:
How do you work it out if you have ...
Back 70 on B'ham at 2.90 lay 50 B'ham at 1.70 back 50 the draw at 2.4 Lay 40 the draw at 2.0 B'ham win, profit 88, what is my ROI ? |
|
By:
Racingguru, ROI refers to profit on turnover. This is peculiar to gambling, and the source of a lot of confusion.
it opens up a whole can of worms in any case, as even turnover can be difficult to define. I use 'bet volume', which is the sum total of back bets, plus the backer's stake for your lay bets. Others may sum the liability of all bets. Others still may use the maximum liability per event to calculate it. I also look at 'market turnover' which refers to the sum total of the absolute values of profit per market (losses are added to the total as a positive number). Although profit on turnover on it's own may not be all that useful as a stat, it becomes more interesting when you add the turnover ratio. Someone with a 3% profit on turnover could be making 10x as much as someone with a 6% profit on turnover, but if you know the turnover ratio, you get more of a complete picture to assess the results. |
|
By:
havent seen fishing like this since Janov & schalke05
top bombing |
|
By:
aye robot
Date Joined: 17 Jan 08 Add contact | Send message When: 03 Dec 10 16:23 ROI is a useless measure in gambling. Avocado's definition of ROI tells you nothing more than the odds of a single bet (which you already know). You're better off expressing that as "odds" not "ROI." The growth you see in your total bank might be expressed as ROI but it's not a good way of looking at returns because in gambling your money is never really "invested" in the way that it is when you buy shares (for example). Nor is the size of your bank necessarily relevant to your returns. Of course you can make an analogy between sports gambling and financial investing but it will always be weak and flawed. It's much better to call gambling what it is and use the native terminology wherever possible as that's the most accurate way of describing what we do. Gambling is a game that you win or lose, we are more accurately described as "players" not "investors", we don't "buy and sell" we "back" and "lay," our transactions are wagers, not investments. I see that quite differently. For what I do, the size of my bank is very relevant to the returns. For instance, using a £20k bank instead of a £10k bank, I would expect to make signicantly more money (though not double). This almost certainly wouldn't be the case for you. My overall aim is to increase my net worth (and to a lesser extent disposable income). Betting profits are a substantial part of my overall income, and I see alloction of capital as a pure investment decision, whether it be for betfair or not. I really don't think there is a need to differentiate between this and other 'investments' other than on the grounds that people may be fooling themselves by calling it an investment. Investment generally refers to using capital to make a profit. Under that simple definition, I think it qualifies as investment. There are two inputs that create profitability for successful people on Betfair 1) labour or time spent (this could be trading/betting, building bots etc.) 2) capital (betfair balance, paying for software/hardware, perhaps even employees) For Aye Robot, I guess 2) is far less important than point 1). For me capital is important. If I removed 80% of my balance, it would severly affect my ability to make a profit for an extended period of time, whereas other may be able to get back to their original bank size in a matter of weeks or days. No doubt, Aye Robot is able to operate way more efficiently than I do, but the question becomes: If you can make £100,000 per year using a £10k bank (the actual size of the bank doesn't matter, it's just an example), is it worth using a £50k bank to make £110,000? My answer would be yes obviously if the risk characteristics are also similar. These are the kind of questions where ROI starts to matter, as you need to decide what you are going to do with your excess capital. Perhaps you just spend it, but if you want to use it to make more money, you have to decide how to use (or if you like invest [;)]) the money. |
|
By:
On the narrow point, I did include a caveat:
The growth you see in your total bank might be expressed as ROI but it's not a good way of looking at returns because in gambling your money is never really "invested" in the way that it is when you buy shares (for example). Nor is the size of your bank necessarily relevant to your returns. On the wider point; If you're functioning profitably and don't have a problem with gambling then you can call it what you like, it doesn't matter. The problem is that many people are essentially in denial about their gambling and using the language of "proper" investment just reinforces the idea that what they're doing is sensible and worthwhile when it's not. There are two fundamental differences between gambling and investing that spring to mind (I'm sure there are many more besides). The first is that investing is basically a positive sum game (over long time periods), whereas sports betting is a negative sum game. The second is that by investing in shares you materially effect the outcome of your investment by helping the company capitalise it's business- your investment helps the company you are investing in. In gambling this is not the case. These kind of fundamental differences far outweigh any passing similarities between the two. |
|
By:
Investment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.
This is not right. Investing is capitalising a business. You might use capital to make a profit in any number of ways- for instance currency speculation, which is also not investment. When you think about it the word "investment" is much miss used as a euphemism, it's not just gamblers who are guilty of this. For example governments often talk about "investing in hospitals" - this is nonsense, hospitals don't make a profit, we spend on hospitals. |
|
By:
Investment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.
Surely this is generally accepted. You will find this as a definition in dictionaries. Admittedly it's not the same capitalising a business, which is another definition of 'investment'. Investing in your education, or investing in art/collectibles, are correct uses of the term as far as I'm concerned. Your main point of difference seems to lie in the fact that investment as you define it has a beneficial financial effect for all parties involved (on average at least, as it's a positive sum game) I'm having a look around on the internet, and finding some conflicting views on this too, an interesting one from the wikipedia entry on 'speculation': In finance, speculation is a financial action that does not promise safety of the initial investment along with the return on the principal sum. In a financial context, the terms "speculation" and "investment" are actually quite specific. For instance, although the word "investment" is typically used, in a general sense, to mean any act of placing money in a financial vehicle with the intent of producing returns over a period of time, most ventured money—including funds placed in the world's stock markets—is actually not investment, but speculation. Talking about safety of the initial investment, which is actually not investment Speculating is the assumption of risk in anticipation of gain but recognizing a higher than average possibility of loss. The term speculation implies that a business or investment risk can be analyzed and measured, and its distinction from the term Investment is one of degree of risk. It differs from gambling, which is based on random outcomes. At best these definitions seem very subjective. This would suggest that a speculator who makes very consistent profits metamorphoses into an investor. |
|
By:
aye robotInvestment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.
This is not right. Investing is capitalising a business. You might use capital to make a profit in any number of ways- for instance currency speculation, which is also not investment. When you think about it the word "investment" is much miss used as a euphemism, it's not just gamblers who are guilty of this. For example governments often talk about "investing in hospitals" - this is nonsense, hospitals don't make a profit, we spend on hospitals. =========================================================================================== How "wide" is your vision? Appears to be very VERY limited! For example ........so ....you regard an "investment " in BUILDING ...a "hospital"...as being NOT an "investment"! Some people regard PROPERTY as an "investment " .......LONG-TERM!....Not you....... If a Hospital say helps people in a locality to get BACK TO HEALTH more quickly .....then this surely is an important "investment" re the economy .........................or Do you regard "illness" as UNIMPORTANT factor re howe YOU value society? Seems to me that you are a "dinosaur"..................... who is a cross between ATTILA THE HUN and HITLER!  You clearly don't regard EDUCATION either as "important" either! |
|
By:
How do you "value" health the aye robot?
Is the private sector profits all you "value"? |